Practical Prosecution Advice After KSR

© 2007 Michael Kondoudis (www.patentablydefined.com) and Christopher Paul Mitchell (Chris)

KSR In A Nutshell

The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., et al., 550 U.S.___(2007) modified an established test for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. Prior to KSR, Federal Circuit jurisprudence generally required a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to support a combination or modification of cited art (the TSM test) in an obviousness determination. After KSR, the TSM test is still insightful, but because it is too rigid, a broader, more flexible standard is proper. KSR did not alter the fundamental principles of obviousness.

In KSR, the Supreme Court identifies four specific Federal Circuit errors in applying the TSM test. Extrapolating from these errors, KSR provides the following guidance:

1. In searching for a reason to combine/modify elements of cited art, it is permissible for an Examiner to look not only to the problem to be solved by the inventor, but also at any known problem or need for the combination/modification.

2. One of ordinary skill in the art may be led by art other than that which solves the problem at hand.

3. A claim can be obvious merely because the combination/modification was obvious to try.

4. Common sense, whether guided by hindsight or not, properly plays a role in an obviousness analysis. KSR mentions common sense five times.

The Analytical Framework After KSR

KSR leaves a lot of open questions the answers to which are not immediately clear. That being said, the following observations appear most noteworthy:

1. There has been a further shift, however slight, against patentability. In practice, KSR makes it easier for an Examiner to make obviousness rejections by replacing the “rigid” TSM test with a more expansive, flexible standard.

2. Graham v. John Deere still controls. KSR emphasizes that “the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls. If a court, or a patent Examiner, conducts this analysis and concludes the claimed subject matter was obvious, the claim is invalid under §103.” (KSR Opinion at p. 2).

3. An Examiner must establish “an apparent reason to combine … known elements.” (KSR Opinion at page 4).

4. An Examiner must expressly articulate the underlying analysis supporting a proffered “apparent reason.”

Patent Prosecution After KSR

After KSR, it would appear that a strategic shift in emphasis in responding to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 may be prudent. When appropriate, at least the following strategies for challenging the sufficiency and/or propriety of an asserted combination may be more promising, depending on the unique circumstances of a case.

Strategy #1 – Focus on the Interdependency of Features in a Claim

KSR expressly instructs that it remains legally insufficient to conclude that a claim is obvious just because each feature of a claim can be independently shown in the cited art. (KSR Opinion at p. 14). Thus, establishing that a claimed combination is not a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” (KSR Opinion at p. 13) may be particularly effective in traversing an obviousness rejection.

Strategy #2 – Emphasize Teachings Away

KSR discussed in some detail United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), stating in part that in that case, “[t]he Court relied upon the corollary principle that when the prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious.” (KSR Opinion at p. 12). Accordingly, if such teachings are present and are significant, there may be no reason to make the asserted combination/modification.

Strategy #3 – Ensure that an Office Action Provides a Sufficient Rationale for an Asserted Combination

KSR requires that an Examiner provide “some articulated reasoning with some rationale underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (KSR Opinion at p. 14). Remember, an Examiner must “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does,” (KSR Opinion at p. 15). And, the Examiner must make “explicit” this rationale of “the apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed,” including a detailed explanation of “the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace” and “the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.” (KSR Opinion at p. 14). Anything less than such an explicit analysis may not be sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness.

Strategy #4 – Focus/Present Unexpected Results or Commercial Success

These secondary considerations under Graham v. Deere remain relevant. Accordingly, presenting evidence of unexpected results or commercial success remains a possible strategy for rebutting an obviousness rejection.

Conclusion

KSR did not change the fundamental principles of obvious under U.S. Patent Law. Instead, KSR increased the challenge an applicant faces to obtain allowance. This increased challenge, however, can be met by including non-obviousness arguments that were either emphasized by or unaffected by KSR instead of arguments: (1) based on a failure to meet the TSM test; (2) that the examiner is relying on an “obvious to try” rationale; and/or (3) that cited art is too far afield because it is not directed to the problem at hand.

Strategies to Minimize Prosecution Time and Increase Patent Term – Part 2

© 2007 Michael Kondoudis,
www.patentablydefined.com

This is the second of a two part series on maximizing patent value by minimizing prosecution time before the U.S. Patent Office. As in Part I, several strategies to minimize the prosecution time of an application to achieve the earliest possible issue date are presented.

File a Nonprovisional Application Instead of a Provisional Application Whenever Possible

Provisional applications are NEVER examined; only nonprovisional applications are examined. And a utility application that claims the benefit of a provisional filing date is examined according to its own actual filing date, not the provisional filing date. As a result, the period from a provisional application filing date until the filing of a corresponding nonprovisional application delays the start of examination. Only the filing of a nonprovisional application places the application into line for examination.

This is not to say that provisional applications should always be avoided. To the contrary, provisional application can be both useful and necessary because a provisional filing date closes off later prior art from being cited against the application, and may be necessitated by business considerations (i.e., the ability to say “patent pending”), or to avoid a bar to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Thus, when considerations that outweigh speedy examination are present, a provisional application should be considered. Nonetheless, when possible, it is generally best to avoid filing a provisional application. And, when a provisional application is filed, it is generally best to start the conversion process as soon as possible.

Prosecute Applications Efficiently

Responding to all Office Actions as early as possible (hopefully within the typical three month response deadline set by most Office Actions) tends to speed up patent prosecution. To be sure, responding early to an Office Action yields a benefit measurable in days. This benefit, however, is amplified by routinely responding early to Office Actions. Indeed, routinely responding sooner than required can have a significant cumulative effect, especially when one considers those applications that cause several Office Actions to be generated.

Maintaining efficient communication with the examiner by interview also tends to speed up patent prosecution. Interviews help applicants better understand how an examiner is interpreting cited art, the basis for rejections, and how an examiner will respond to potential claim amendments, often without many of the estopple effects of paper prosecution. In these ways, interviews may greatly advance prosecution by at the very least making responses to Office Actions more effective.

Filing responses by Express Mail or Facsimile can also reduce prosecution time. Even though responses filed by first class mail are considered to have been filed on the day they are deposited in the mail, they must still be delivered to the PTO before they can be processed and may be lost. In contrast, papers filed electronically or by facsimile are virtually immediately received. In sum, filing electronically or by facsimile is safer and faster.

Take Advantage of Formal Examiner Amendments

MPEP § 1302.04 specifically limits changes to an image file wrapper (IFW) application to either: (1) a formal examiner’s amendment; or (2) an amendment made by the applicant. Also, this section authorizes the use of a formal examiner’s amendment to informalities in the body of the written portions of the specification as well as all errors and omissions in the claims. When faced with a the necessity for modest formal changes, a formal examiner amendment can avoid at least the time the PTO will take to process a response, even if that response is filed electronically.

Strategies to Minimize Prosecution Time and Increase Patent Term – Part 1

© 2007 Michael Kondoudis,
www.patentablydefined.com

This is the first of a two part series on maximizing patent value by minimizing prosecution time before the U.S. Patent Office.

Introduction

Under U.S. Patent Laws, a patent is enforceable from the date the application issues up to 20 years after the application was filed. It is during this so-called “patent term” that the majority of the reward for an applicant’s investment in prosecuting the application is realized. The most direct way to maximize this patent term is to minimize the prosecution time of the application to achieve the earliest possible issue date. This series will discuss several strategies to consider.

Draft the Application to Appeal to Examiner’s Discretion

An often overlooked factor in patent prosecution is that examiners have some discretion as to the order in which they choose to “pick up” and examine applications from their docket. Examiners are supposed to take up applications in a specified hierarchy specified by Section 708 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), which generally specifies that applications are to be examined in the order of their effective filing dates. The PTO, however, ensures compliance with this requirement by monitoring whether the oldest application on each docket is acted upon every other week (known as a by-week). As a result, after an examiner acts on the oldest case on his/her docket, that examiner has some discretion to “cherry pick” applications from their docket thereafter.

Sometimes Examiners Need to Find an Easy Application to Examine

Examiners are under ever increasing production pressures and sometimes they need an easier to examine application to boost their production. For example, consider that an examiner is responsible for ensuring that the application satisfies the Patent Laws and Rules, understanding the claimed invention and conducting a thorough search of the art, and allowing only patentable subject matter. Also, examiners are required to meet certain production quotas measured every by-week. Thus, when an examiner needs to make up ground to meet his/her production quota at the end of a by-week, they tend to look for applications from their docket that will require easier-to-generate first Office Actions, so that they can increase their production. There is, therefore, an opportunity to obtain earlier examination of an application by drafting the application in a manner that makes the application “attractive” to an examiner, when the examiner needs a quick production boost.

How to Draft an “Attractive” Application

What exactly makes an application “attractive” to an examiner is impossible to answer with specificity because, as the saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” As a general rule, however, easier to examine applications tend to be more attractive to examiners. And, easier to examine applications share a common trait; they are drafted with the examiner’s job in mind. So, these applications are written in clear, concise, and understandable language with easy to understand figures that correspond to the written description, are well-labeled, and illustrate every claim feature. These applications tend to require an art search of a relatively reasonable scope by keeping the number of claims to a minimum, especially the number of independent claims. Also, these applications use reasonable claim language that accurately and specifically identifies the claimed invention while avoiding lengthy preambles. Sometimes, these applications even describe, at the beginning or the end of the detailed description portion of the written description, some of the subject matter an applicant believes is patentable. All of these traits tend to make an examiner’s job easier by: (1) minimizing the time an examiner must spend to understand the invention to be examined; (2) minimizing and focusing the scope of the search for prior art; and (3) minimizing the need to identify objectional informalities (e.g., inconsistencies between the written description and the drawings, claim features not shown in the drawings).

Rescinding Disclaimer Occurring During Prosecution of Parent Application(s)

© 2007 Christopher Paul Mitchell (Chris)

The CAFC’s decision in Hakim v. Cannon Avent Group, PLC, et al., No. 05-1398 (Fed. Cir. 2007) surprised some practitioners. Hakim had sued asserting infringement of its patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,321,931 (the ‘931 patent). The lower court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions, including a motion that the ‘931 patent was not infringed. The lower court reasoned that an amendment in a parent application to the ‘931 patent also was relevant in construing the claims of the ‘931 patent and thus narrowly construed the limitation in question.

On appeal, Hakim argued that “that by re-filing the application with broader claims, he avoided any unnecessary restriction that may have crept into the prior prosecution.” Slip op. at 5. The CAFC did not agree. The decision noted that

[a]lthough a disclaimer made during prosecution [of a parent application] can be rescinded, permitting recapture of the disclaimed scope, the prosecution history must be sufficiently clear to inform the examiner that the previous disclaimer, and the prior art that it was made to avoid, may need to be re-visited.

Slip op. at 7.

In light of this decision, I will consider taking the practical approach of including the following form paragraph in the application papers when filing continuation applications:

This application is a continuation of prior pending U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. XXXXXXX, filed XXXXXXX, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. Any disclaimer that may have occurred during the prosecution of the above-referenced application(s) is hereby expressly rescinded, and reconsideration of all relevant art is respectfully requested.

A Practical Blog is Born

© 2007 Christopher Paul Mitchell (Chris)

Welcome to The IPIP (Incredibly Practical Intellectual Property) Blog, a source for practical suggestions for better protecting intellectual property. My goal is to enable attorneys and IP professionals to provide practical suggestions and best practices to other attorneys and IP professionals.

I envision posts authored by attorneys and IP professionals that are actually engaged in the day-to-day representation of clients (such as law firm associates and solo practitioners). Each post will ideally focus on a particular tip or best practice. Each post will hopefully include a legal and/or commercial rationale for the particular tip or best practice. These tips or best practices will then be available for all to read and consider.

I hope you will consider authoring a post. If you are interested in contributing to The IPIP Blog as a named author, please visit www.mitchellip.com and contact me.